Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday March 19, 2011 @05:50PM
from the at-least-there's-no-war dept.

maliamnon writes "US, French, and British forces began enforcing a UN resolution (1973/2011) to defend civilians in Libya today. French aircraft are attacking tanks, while the US and possibly UK are supporting the operation with cruise missiles from sea."Update: 03/19 22:34 GMT by T:
Adds reader bloggerkg: "More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, US Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing. The US will conduct a damage assessment of the sites, which include SA-5 missiles and communications facilities. A senior US military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the missiles landed near Misrata and Tripoli, the capital and Gadhafi's stronghold."

The Arab League and the UN have spoken. Strangely enough, the French acted first in support of both those organizations. Us and the Brits joined them. Also, if we clear the path for the Lybian rebels, who then march into Tripoli, then we're "helping" instead of "dictating".

We are effectively playing the role of the French in the American Revolutionary War - keeping the powerful weaponry at bay so that they can liberate themselves. In the Revolutionary War, the French helped keep the British Navy at bay, something we could not do for ourselves. Similarly here we are keeping the planes/armor that the Libyans can't deal with themselves at bay.

In WW2, there were a lot of french people in Great Brittain and some have memories of wanting to pay in say a restaurant and being told "the bill has been paid" referring to the French soldiers protecting the British retreat at Dunkirk.

Now cowardly comedians who never fought for anything and would shit themselves if asked to defend their country claim the French are cowards.

But then we have taken coward actors over real heroes for a long time.

It is easy to say that the US should not interfere with other countries, but: "with great power comes great responsibility".

Like it or not: the US are the world police. They have a big army and lots of fancy military equipment, and most of the time I believe they are really trying to do what is best for everybody, and prevent bloodshed etc. etc. With an army as big as theirs, they have a moral obligation to intervene when people are being killed for no apparent reason (or for "bad" reasons, whatever that means). It is however not so easy to decide when to intervene, because it is often not clear what exactly "good" and "bad" reasons are: wars and international politics are not as straightforward as movies (I wish they were. It would either make the movies more interesting or the politics easier to understand).

And yes, they will sometimes decide to intervene when it should not have been done. That is always easy to say afterwards. How many times have you made wrong decisions in your personal life (or in your MMORPG if you prefer)? Often enough, I bet. The consequences may be smaller in case of personal decisions, but should that be a reason for a country to sit back and do nothing? No.

Yes, because sitting idly by while Gaddafi uses indiscriminate tank and artillery fire as well as air strikes on cities that contain not only rebels but innocent noncombatants such as women and children, detains foreign journalists, and outright lies to the rest of the world(the rebels are all brainwashed by al-Qaeda, and the Libyan government is abiding by the ceasefire) is a significant contribution to peace. To buy peace, you sometimes have to pay in blood.

I'm not generally a supporter of military intervention to solve problems, however there are cases such as this where it is genuinely the only way. Qaddafi is sufficiently dangerous to himself and the people living in the region such as to justify our throwing our weight behind the pro-democracy forces. The thing we need to be exceedingly careful about is if they do win, we need to stand behind whomever the Libyan people choose in their elections.

How is this modded insightful? While this argument in favor of war is certainly overused, I can't see how this situation could be resolved with anything other than physical force. We currently have a very strong military force backing up a tyrannical dictator marching towards a city with every intention of murdering every man, woman, and child in the city when they get there. Because they were protesting. Against his tyranny. This sort of thing cannot be tolerated any more. I know it has happened many, many times in the history while we simply watched idly by, but this is no excuse to fail to act now, and we are simply out of options, Gaddafi has forced our hand.

First of all, the revolution was sparked by the people, and fought by the people before the UN intervention. In the present case, the UN is in fact offering military SUPPORT, not a full-scale military intervention and is not starting anything.

Second, one major problem with Iraq is the huge amount of civilian casualties, estimated at 100k. Whether they were killed by the Taliban, lack of medicine* or American troops doesn't matter: the war killed them, without the war they would have lived, and the war was started by the USA.In Libya, the war is already started so it's definitely not the UN's fault if people die indirectly as a result. The UN is indeed trying to reduce the damage that will occur.*The stats actually do not include people who died indirectly from the war, such as lack of medical treatment for injuries/diseases not caused by the war or lack of food.

Third, the UN must stick to offering military support where needed and nothing else. Air strikes on military assets are efficient - they are accurate and do not require a presence on the ground. Jets and bombers can take off from nearby countries, drop bombs on very specific military assets in Libya, then go back to where they came from. No territorial occupation, no troops spending too much time among the population (which can put the population at extra risk by drawing enemy fire or causing troops to mistake civilians for enemies). On top of that, when foreign troops are on the ground the local population may feel "invaded" even if troops are on their side, so at least air strikes avoid this and the population feels like they're leading the fight.The Libyans must be in control or else they will resent the UN and things will not get better. Basically, the UN must offer the required help but needs also to keep their involvement to a minimum. Most of all, the UN must make sure that Libyans are happy about their help. If at any point the Libyans want to UN to leave them alone, the UN must back off not matter what help the UN believes it could provide. The moment the UN takes control, we're headed for another Iraq.

Fourth: Mistakes will happen. A bomb might hit civilian assets by mistake and kill innocent people.This is a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan because when it happens we point the finger to the USA and say "It wouldn't have happened if you hadn't started this mess".But if the Libyans started the revolution, if they asked for the help of the UN or at least approved of it and if the UN takes extra care to avoid errors, then the UN can't be blamed for mistakes. What I'm saying here is not that the UN must cowardly put all the responsibility on someone else. But it's important that the Libyans do not come to hate the UN's involvement or else the new government will be anti-democracy and anti-Western World. It's important that the Libyans see that the Western World is a friend and the UN must be a genuine friend.

Fifth: the USA should not have gotten involved in this. The USA have a terrible image in the Middle-East, Africa and pretty much all third-world and all Islamic countries. This is unlikely to improve the image of the USA, instead it's much more likely to make Libyans think "If the USA is involved, the UN's help might be a bad thing after all". This just makes it easier for terrorists and religious fanatics to gain support from the population and take power.I can't believe the US government was that stupid. And frankly, I'm actually wondering if the USA really are involved because they want to help the Libyans. I'm suspecting they can't be that stupid and did this on purpose to serve whatever new megalomaniac secret plan the CIA/White House/DoD came up with.I won't say the USA should back out, it's too late anyway, the harm is done. The UN intervention has been tainted with the mark of conquest by the USA now.

Sixth: the UN must back out once their role of offering military support is done. They have to let the Libyans choose the

I fully support the military action in Libya, because nothing short of that is going to stop mass murder of civilian population that is perpetrated by Gaddafi forces in rebelling parts of the country. Good for them that they've acted swiftly enough, too (one month sounds like a lot, but when it comes to world diplomacy it is remarkably fast).

However, I'm afraid that UN forces will make the same mistake that NATO did in Bosnia and especially Kosovo - acting as peacekeepers in name, but picking a side and sticking with it in reality. In Kosovo this was most prominent - when Serbs were burning down mosques, killing Albanians and driving them out into Albanian, NATO was quick to intervene. But when Serbian army and paramilitaries withdrew, and the only force remaining in the province was KLA, the latter started burning down churches, killing Serbs, and driving them out into Serbia - and KFOR stood aside and watched.

Now, if the rebels prevail, I don't think anyone is going to shed tears if the "colonel" hangs, trial or no trial. But the sides in this civil war are largely arranged around tribal identity - Qadhadfa vs the rest of them. We say that the rebels are "pro-West", but so was KLA, by their own words - which did not stop them to partake in genocide themselves when they had the upper hand. So if the rebels win, and start massacring Qadhadfa - would the West also intervene militarily to stop that? Somehow, I doubt it, which is too bad, and would discredit the whole operation. I hope I'm wrong.

As a Zimbabwean I know that nobody's going to "misdirect" one of those 110 tomahawks a bit further south to sort out our problem but I do know that Mugabe considered Gadaffi an ally and has received help from Lybia. It is also clear that Bob has reacted to the situation in the middle east - i.e. he has felt the cold fear that bullies feel when they realise that they are more alone and beginning to stick out.

So from us Southern Africans to the rest of you - we don't have any aeroplanes to send but we are with you in spirit. Kick G's hairy arse as thoroughly as you can for us please. One day when we have sorted out our own home we will be able to help you like we did in WWI and WWII.

Will the US now bomb Israel toï force them to comply with the hundreds of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of?

Depends. Is there a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of military force against Israel? There was one for Libya.

what's the difference between Yemen, Bahrain & lybia?

One of those doesn't exist.

If you mean Libya, then the difference is that it has an ongoing country-wide armed uprising (not simply street protests) for almost a month now, and government has been using artillery (incl. heavy naval artillery) and bombers to suppress it.

That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive. Humanitarianism is not a factor in the equation -- if it were, we'd invade Africa.

Have you ever actually met UN prosecutors? Or policymakers? There are a lot of bottom-dwellers on the world stage, yes, and a lot of really self-involved people in power throughout the world. But there are also a lot of really good people involved in the work, and a lot of really competent people who believe in what they're doing, and there are people who--though they are self-involved--genuinely care about whether or not other people are dying.

Humanitarianism is a factor in the equation. It's just not the only factor. Wars cost a lost of money and lives, and UN intervention is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If you think they don't care whether their presence helps or hurts, you don't know them at all.

At this point neither of these despotic regimes have lost whole cities that they subsequently attacked with air raids and heavy armored infantry.

On the other hand your point is well taken. These evil regimes are of strategic and paramount economic interest to the Western world. A civil war in Saudi Arabia is a sure way to bring the world economy to a screeching halt. Unfortunately the totally corrupt House of Saud shows no signs to move towards meaningful reform. At this point there is no reason to expec

you still aren't fixing the shit conditions that allow one to take power in the first place.

Absolutely! Before the UN or anybody else intervenes, there should be some clear sign that the people are ready for change! Maybe a mass uprising or something...

we got too many of our own problems to go around playing world police.

That's why we have several people, in several places, each doing their own jobs. The Department of Labor doesn't give a damn about Libya. Likewise, the Department of Defense doesn't care if you have a job right now. Government is a part of society, which is a group of people who have realized that people can work together, each doing their own jobs, to accomplish many things at once.

Do you also expect the President to not sleep tonight, because some kid in Oregon broke his leg?

While I can't really disagree with you since Egypt and Tunisia aren't major oil players it should be noted their protests were mostly without military action and wouldn't have warranted UN intervention in any case.

But Libya doesn't have that much oil, only about 1% of world production.
I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq, but in this case there is a home grown up rising that needs some help. If all we do is destroy Libyan military forces that are murdering civilians, but otherwise leave the revolution to the locals I support this action.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the decision is based in large part upon whether intervention stands a substantial, realistic chance to do any good. Military intervention in places like Somalia would accomplish nothing productive; it's been tried. There often is no central government oppressing and attacking people, it's dozens (or more) bands of irregulars, led by warlords working mostly from drug money, fighting each other and taking the opportunity for the occasional tribal massacre. In some cases there *is* a central government oppressing and murdering people, but the alternative would be another Somalia.

In the case of Libya, it seems clear that the citizenry wants the current regime out, and the current regime is willing to kill a substantial percentage of the population to hold onto power. It's also a fair bet that, once the smoke clears, Libyans will be willing and able to establish a new government and bring things back to some semblance of normalcy.

If the decision were based solely upon maintaining a cheap oil supply, we could just as easily help crazy-ass dictators like Gaddafi restore order and suppress the rebellion, in exchange for a few price and production promises.

Not that I disagree with you- there is a strong correlation between places that receive our attention and places with strategic resources. And I am in general reluctant to support military intervention. But this probably is the right thing to do in Libya- it'd probably be genocide if Gadaffi retook Benghazi. And seeing as he's yet another demon of our own making (we sold him weapons, we "welcomed him back into the international community"), that does give us somewhat a moral obligation

And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian?

Was there an uprising going on in Iraq when the invasion began? No, was all about the weapons of mass destruction and how they wouldn't allow the weapons inspectors access to the places where those WMDs were stored. Of course, that wasn't helped by the fact that there were no WMDs and that the "evidence" of their existence was doubted by other countries from the beginning. It turns out the French were right.

In this case, there IS a violent uprising going on. I think that it is right to go in now, and that i

As the adage puts it: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

This "invasion" orchestrated by France and participated by the US, UK, Italy and Greece will be viewed by the more than 1 Billion Muslims around the world as yet another crusade against the Muslim world.

The West forgets one thing - that the Muslims still treat the West as their Enemy.

I am from a country where the majority Muslims rule, and every single day we are being bombarded with brainwashing propaganda that the West = Christian = Evil.

We (the United States) are not allowed to admit we made a mistake in Iraq and try to fix that mistake by stopping our unilateral regime-change actions and instead joining a UN action against Gaddafi?

The US never admits it made a mistake. Instead, it changes its plan and claims the new plan is what they meant to do all along. "They have terrible weapons of mass destruction and aided the 9/11 terrorists! Wait, we can't prove that? Err, we meant to liberate them all along, Saddam was a bad guy (even though

What we will be doing (ostensibly purely as a side effect, although almost certainly by intent) is clearing the path for the rebels to do what they will. Which will almost certainly be the creation of a democracy (however flawed of one).

I've been reading the New York Times and Wall Street Journal carefully to try to figure out who the rebels are, and I can't find it.

Who are these rebels, and why does anybody think they'll create a democracy, or anything other than a dictatorship just as brutal as Ghaddafi's, if not more brutal?

Gaddafi is a big enough problem that I think a blind reroll of the dice would give good odds for the next government even if it doesn't turn out to be secular.

Ah, yes, the argument from ignorance. We don't know what's going to happen, so let's do it.

Putting aside the 150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis killed, do you think anyone is better off as a result of the Iraq invasion?

The Iraqis are.

Iraq had the best health care system in the middle east. Saddam, for all his faults, sent doctors to study in England and elsewhere, and people came from around the Arab world to be treated. That's all gone now. Doctors and their families were getting kidnapped, so they left.

According to the Washington Post, the Bush Administration appointed a free-market campaign contributor from the right-to-life movement to run the health care system (replacing an administrator who had actually managed war zone hospitals for the U.N.). Bush's appointee replaced the pharmaceutical delivery system with a market-based approach. Result: The hospitals couldn't get drugs any more.

As for who is imposing their will, it appears that Gaddafi imposing his will on the African country he has ruled for 41 years. Strange that you would support a dictator. I guess you may have a case if the dictator had stayed in power by winning free and open elections for over 40 years, but that's not even the case here. It's not like the population is laying flowers down at his feet. There is an open rebellion going on over there.

The mandate for action and the goal seem clear. Clear the way so the Lybians themselves can march into Tripoli.
Much better outcome than having US troops on the ground not knowing who to shoot.
Added bonus, we -start- to make a clear break from the ruthless dictators we've supported in the name of the cold war and later the phantom menace, er, I mean the war on terror.

And in favor of the even more ruthless regimes that will likely follow...

There was never a good choice. Hopefully it will turn out that this was at least the least bad option. Things are starting to get pretty hot everywhere, though. I hope Tunisia won't turn out to be the Archduke Ferdinand of our generation.

Just profit. "Defending civilians" will end killing even more people that did Gaddafi, maybe orders more if we take Irak as an example, but the oil production will get ensured and under more friendly hands.

You destroy someone's tanks and fighters today. Next week you sell them new tanks and fighters. Profits and Chaos are the byproducts of the transaction.

Sorry for the flippant answer. I am sure that whoever replaced Halliburton in controlling the current administration did an analysis that showed deployment of ground troops was not necessary to generate obscene profits.

The people against Bush were against the questionable intelligence of WMDs by the Hussein regime.
This UN-sanctioned action is to protect civilians against a violent quelling of a peaceful uprising.
Can you see a difference there?

Bullshit. Saddam Hussein was a fucking monster who had more blood on his hands than Qaddafi has ever dreamed of.

That's beside the point - it's not a game of "who is the worst dictator?". If it was, perhaps Idi Amin - who killed hundreds of thousands of his people - would have been deposed. Oddly enough, Gaddafi gave him military support at one time, but Amin died in Saudi (I'm reading this stuff off wikipedia, naturally:)

Of course getting rid of Saddam was good in of itself; but part of the reason why it hasn't gone... so smoothly since the actual invasion might be that the Iraqis don't feel 'liberated'. This is why the nations attacking Libya at the moment are trying to do it without landing troops. Well, except us British, who sent a diplomat with some special forces as protection, and got chucked out of the country again. Leading to the classic quote from one of the rebels "Why didn't they ask us? There is a proper way to do these things...".

The reason the Iraqis do not feel liberated is because now they must attempt to run a country which is still fighting the same civil war started in 632 when Muhammad bit the dust. It has nothing to do with how they were liberated from Saddam, what matters is they were liberated to resume killing each other over dusty bones from a probable late stage schizophrenic who heard voices and somehow presumed it to be the arch-Angel Gabriel. Allah, being all powerful, is also all *other* and does not interact with t

... which happened at a time when the US considered him our best buddy in the Middle East and enthusiastically supported his regime because he was fighting Big Bad Iran, yeah. Like that.

There was really one and only one point when the US and our allies had both the moral authority and the military opportunity to do in Iraq what we're currently doing (or at least starting to do) in Libya: at the end of Desert Storm, when we had the largest allied military force assembled since WW2 waiting just across the b

Yeah, yer right, the nerve of the West to attempt knock over a ruthless dictator who has supported the worst sort of despots throughout Africa and who decided his people should have no right to self-determination. What were they thinking? What were you thinking?

I know that RTFA'ing is not well received around here, but in this case reading the second one would be a good thing.

First of all, the resolution only gives the different countries permission to defend civilians, not to depose Gaddafi.

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity...Analysis: These first two highlighted sections emphasise that this is all about defending the civilian population in Libya from attacks by its own government. One of the conditions for action set out by Nato countries has been "a demonstrable need" to intervene....1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;Analysis: The overriding stated aim is to halt the fighting and to achieve a ceasefire. It does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi though one can assume that this is what the countries promoting this resolution would like. Many of their leaders have said so quite explicitly.

Also, other countries are barred from putting in occupation forces and so on. Current attacks seem to be aimed at anti-air defenses so their forces can start enforcing a no-fly zone without having their planes shot down.

What, we aren't wanted there by the Libyan government? The leader who has said he has no problem killing as many people as it takes to retain control over his country? The government that has been gunning down peaceful protests with machine guns (sure, the protests aren't very peaceful now, but that's why)? The government that was sending fighter jets against chants and flags?

When innocent people are being murder by the hundreds and thousands for doing nothing more than speaking their minds...we have a responsibility as human beings to take action to help them. I can agree that military action is not always the best choice. If you have some alternative proposal, I may agree with you 100% after hearing it. But at the moment, I see no other option.

On a related note, it could be said that France wasn't wanted in the American Revolution either. But they got involved. And without their involvement, it is quite likely that the US would not exist as a nation.

At the beginning, they didn't want us there (March 2nd). [presstv.ir] Of course, once the government started using tanks, fighters, etc. the opinions kinda changed...

Well yea, the entire argument for us being there is based on the government using tanks, fighters, etc. to gun down innocent (and some not so innocent I suppose) people. On March 2nd, I too would have been saying that we have no business getting involved. Things have changed.

No, but sometimes the use of force is the only way to stop someone like Gaddafi from continuing to use force as he slaughters his own people. I realize that you think he should just stop doing so because several Important People have used Really Stern Language telling him that he must stop doing so. But (shockingly!) he just keeps on dropping bombs on those civilians, and using artillery to kill them. What part of that are you not actually understanding? Or when say that we're "believing lies," do you mean that the Gaddafi regime's statements about the nature of what they're doing is actually the correct body of information? That all of the international press on the ground - who are sending us video of Gaddafi's aircraft attacking people on the ground - that they're all part of the conspiracy?

And you're calling other people deluded? How much money are you getting from Gaddafi to astroturf on behalf of his regime, anyway? Do tell.

For the fourth time since Vietnam, I am living through the exact same scenario as your responses show today. It is truly astounding.. Hitchcock couldn't dream this up.. Maybe some science fiction writers have, I don't know. But what I see here is getting to be spooky.

We are sticking our nose in there to ensure we have a pro western regime in place. It is why we are repressing protests in Bahrain. The protesters there are too friendly with Iran. And we need the parking space. We aren't there to help anybody

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here. Time-wise Korea and Vietnam were far closer to each other than they are away from us. And Korea is clearly a far better analogy, as it is also a UN-sanctioned military operation where many countries - not just US - participated towards a well-defined goal. The result is that 50 million people live today in a free democratic country, and not in a Stalinist dictatorship.

Because people stopped caring about politics. They're too busy surfing for porn or playing with their video game consoles or watching their big-screen TV's. Nowadays the masses get their politics in a can - abortion/no abortion. Gay rights/No gay rights. Don't Ask Don't Tell. Republican vs Democrat. It's become a chant, a litany, and nothing more. Actually sitting down and thinking about the world is only done by those very few of us who are much smarter than the rest. And of THAT group, a good chunk have d

you are a fucking idiot if you can't see the difference between a colonial intervention (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and a supportive intervention where the rebels want democracy, have fought hard and made huge gains on their own and with a little air support, can topple their despot on their own and get to work setting up their own government on their own terms.

You do realize that both the UN and the Arab League requested the intervention, right? The Secretary of State was very clear that we wouldn't barge in without the international community's approval. And, I have yet to hear any talk directly of how this is in any way our best interest. Which wasn't the case previously.

This isn't Iraq or Vietnam, we've got a clear objective and one that is relatively straightforward to understand. When it's over we'll be able to assess whether or not it was a success, which h

You may not have noticed, but "we" (the West, the Arabs, everyone else) didn't start any war in Libya. A dictator was mowing down his own people. The UN getting involved isn't starting a war, it's preventing someone almost universally regarded as evil from winning. "War" is not the solution - involvement is. If the Arab League and NATO aren't welcome, the people dancing in the streets have a funny way of protesting.

Personally, I'm quite selfish and would have been perfectly content to just sit this one out. But since we're involved now, I hope that Qaddafi recognizing futility when he sees it and doesn't get his whole military killed.

And Qaddafi is among the worst, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years or so. The biggest difference between Qaddafi and the bulk of the other despots is that he actively wages war against his perceived enemies in the rest of world, rather than just talking about it.

The difference is that the people there are actually having a revolution there.

It may be surprising, but people can manage to live pretty well under a dictator. For many people a dictator doesn't mean that much in practice. They still go on with living their lives, and it generally works OK even without freedom of speech or justice. If you remove a dictator in a place like that a lot of people won't be sure where to go next. So chaos is near guaranteed.

Now where there is an outright civil war it's different. It's clear the people want somebody else in the ruling position and that they will fight to get there. And that they have some sort of plan for when they do that. Of course it's not a guarantee, but the chances of something good coming out of that is much higher.

Popular uprising begins in a country, popular uprising controls half the country. Dictator starts rolling over the people who have formed their own democratic government, UN drops a no fly zone over dictator and starts bombing the crap out of their military resources so the rebels can continue to free themselves.

It works a lot better like that than it did the Neo-Con way which wasted over a trillion dollars and over ten thousand lives of US service members.

If there was an opening to topple these regimes it'll be criminal neglect on any Western government to not pursue the opportunity.

Just because stupid US neo-cons have given humanitarian intervention a bad name doesn't mean there aren't times when they are required and successful. Just asked the people of Sarajevo how they feel about it.

Qadaffi has been a state sponsor of international terrorism for decades. Libyan-initiated terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of countless American and European civilians. Qadaffi himself has admitted as much to the United Nations. As society, Qadaffi's Libya is comparable to Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong Il's North Korea in terms of repression and the use of intelligence forces against its own citizens. Qadaffi likes to use assassination to silence his critics. He has put down attempts at revolt using vi

How do you know it's indiscriminate? I mean other than from what they tell you on TV?

Firing artillery at residential city blocks is kinda indiscriminate by definition. If you want to see an example of what it looks afterwards, have a look at the photos of Grozny circa 1995 or 2000.

Last I checked, Gaddafi did not deny that he's using artillery in his attempt to take over Benghazi (and other rebel cities).

How is NATO bombing any more "discriminate"? You can't hit 112 targets and not hurt any civilians.

Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.

Of course this depends on what will actually be done. NATO was also claiming to be using precision munitions in Kosovo, but they have classified railroad bridges and TV stations as "military targets" and bombed them (in one case, hitting a civilian train as it was crossing a bridge). That kind of thing is a war crime no less than what Gaddafi is doing. So far, however, the talk has been only about 1) shooting down planes, 2) hitting individual artillery and armor units, and 3) bombing army bases and munition depots. If they stick to that plan, it's good enough, and civilian deaths would be minimal.

Why not just let Gaddafi re-establish law and order in the country?

Because he said, in a public and televised speech, that "those who do not love me do not deserve to live", and so far has been consistently implementing that. Consequently, the only "law and order" he can possibly reestablish is the kind where dissenters are massacred en masse.

Yes. There is a difference between dropping a precision guided bomb at a tank and hitting one or two civilians that stood within 10 meters of it, and firing an artillery barrage that hits a bunch of apartment buildings and kills several dozen.

If you believe that, then the obvious solution is to supply Gaddafi with precision guided bombs and Predator drones so he can take out the insurgents "surgically" with collateral damage limited to just one or two civilians within 10 meters of them, well maybe a bit more if the insurgents are using human shields.

the rest of the UN nations are doing what exactly to support this? Sure the security council nations have the highest obligation but there's no reason Italy, Netherlands, Greece, South Africa, and a multitude of other nations can't get involved.

Italy is providing naval and air bases as staging points for NATO operations. I think some Canadian and other nation's jets are beginning to be staged out of southern Sicily.

Well, Italy is letting the UN forces use their ports and airbases, Denmark and Norway have both sent fighters.

Not to mention that the first planes that went into Libyan airspace were French and British. Oh, and various shared NATO resources, and the french have the Charles de Gaulle parked off the Libyan coast and...

Oh sorry, you wanted to rant about how Amurka(!) is always called upon to play the world police only to be bashed by the world community. Feel free to continue.

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

Sorry, Slashdot's HTML parser doesn't allow the <joke> tag.

I'm genuinely pleased to see so many European nations working together on this, including the French. I am a little concerned about Sarkozy's grandstanding, but truth be told, the UN resolution couldn't have been obtained without the French, and as far as I can tell, France (not the UK or USA) is the linchpin of the military coalition that's being assembled.

Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.

Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.

There's a lot of posters from the USA here that like to pretend they got their country on their own without French help and instead have a myth about some civilians with rusty muskets freezing in the woods and then winning a country on their own. The French (and the trained military on the US side) are the flies in the ointment of that myth so people that hold it HATE to be reminded of it and have ended up hating the French. Also the French response to US dema

You got your history turned upside down. The UN agreed with the Afghanistan war in 2001 mission as there was a proper reason for it. Only when Bush extended it to Iraq in 2003 for no reason at all against the will of every country other than the UK (prime minister only, the population was against the war too) and a few paid off votes did the global opinion turn around.

And opening a second front in Iraq and splitting the forces is one of the main reason why Afghanistan turned into the quagmire it is now, so there's no surprise in countries like Spain and Germany wanting to pull out from there after the US fucked that one up.

Be careful when you tell other people they're getting their history wrong. The UN authorized force to deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. He never complied with the terms of the "cease fire" that saved his skin as he pulled back from that invasion, and he continued to shoot at the allied aircraft enforcing the UN-approved no-fly zone set up to prevent his ongoing slaughter of innocents in the north and south. He never stopped fighting following his invasion of Kuwait. All the rest is beside the point, and demanded the use of force to finally stop his regime. On top of that, of course, he never complied with the UN mandates that he allow proper inspections to find out what he did with the mountains of VX gas and other goodies that UN inspectors saw on the ground.

Combine that with Saddam's ongoing construction of the long-range missiles he promised to stop building/importing, his publicly announced cash payments to suicide bombers, his smuggling operations with places like North Korea, his violation of the terms of the financial aid packages intended to feed and care for his citizens (he used the money for weapons, cash for cronies, and more palace building) and you have the conditions that led to the UN authorizing force to remove him. Don't know how you forgot that part, but apparently you did.

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take âoebut monthsâ to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4]

To compare this truly international effort with regards to Libya with the war of aggression against Iraq is nothing but convenient revisionism.

The fact that the French took the lead on this says volumes about how big of a pussy Obama really is.

I really don't think the states needs to flash the size of its dick again quite so soon. If it's going to be done, it should be done right, and welllll, America doesn't exactly have the best reputation for taking charge and doing it right at the moment.

Just to note, I'm in the UK and to be honest I'd say the same for our country right now. Also, I recommend you actually read the quick analysis on the bbc website. The most important phrases in the analysis I feel are this:

Crucially it excludes any "foreign occupation force" in sweeping terms. This is a message to the Arab world - this is not another Iraq.

and this:

[] a final settlement to the crisis in Libya must be political and reached by the parties to the conflict themselves

Wow. Political, military, and historical ignorance plus a gratuitous anti-French slur all in four lines! (Not counting whitespace.) You must have worked really hard to pack that much small-mindedness into such a short post. Um, congratulations, I guess.

Not really. Even if everybody went in, took over the country, made everybody there a slave and pumped the oil for free, it wouldn't pay the cost of the war. Same with Iraq.

If anything, its because if those countries all do go bankrupt, then there'll be war, and this means their fighter pilots and support crews can get combat experience without any real chance of danger before the real thing.